Conspiracy - Theory versus Reality

America has a great constitution, but not many of its citizens would be aware how flawed it is where powers and oversight align with a deficient President.

(My thanks to the Brennan Centre for Justice for this example and its legal credibility.)

Let's imagine that Trump makes it to late 2019 before the impeachment knives are out, and disgruntled Republicans are prepared to support impeachment on Mueller's findings and the President's constant international gaffes.  2020 Presidential elections are looming.

Trump reacts. Unfazed by his own brazen hypocrisy, he tweets that North Korea (NK) is planning a cyber attack to interfere with the 2020 election. His national-security adviser, John Bolton, claims to have seen ironclad (but highly classified) evidence of this planned assault on U.S. democracy. Trump’s inflammatory tweets provoke his "Little Rocket Man" ; he responds by threatening preemptive military strikes. Some Defense Department officials have misgivings, but others have been waiting for such an opportunity. As his statements grow more warlike, “Little Rocket Man phobia” takes hold among the American public.

Proclaiming a threat of war, and invoking his national emergency prerogative, Trump uses Section 706 of the Communications Act to assume government control over internet traffic inside the United States in order to prevent the supposed spread of NK disinformation and propaganda, which he says ironically proclaims is due to Russian collusion. He also declares a national emergency under International Emergency Economic Powers Act (ieepa), authorising the Treasury Department to freeze the assets of any person or organisation suspected of supporting NK's activities against the United States. Wielding authorities conferred by ieepa, the government shuts down  left-leaning websites and domestic civil-society organisations, based on government determinations (classified, of course) that they are subject to NK influence. These include websites and organisations that are focused on getting out the vote.

Lawsuits ensue. Several judges issue orders declaring Trump’s actions unconstitutional, but a handful of judges appointed by the president side with the administration. On the eve of the election, the cases reach the Supreme Court. In a 5–4 opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court observes that the president’s powers are at their zenith when he is using authority granted by Congress to protect national security. Setting new precedent, the Court holds that the First Amendment does not protect North Korean propaganda and that the government needs no warrant to freeze Americans’ assets if its goal is to mitigate a foreign threat.

Protests erupt. On Twitter, and in capital letters, Trump calls the protesters traitors and suggests they could use a good beating.  Disparate alt-left groups enter the fray, and true to form Trump blames them for sparking violent confrontations so he deploys the Insurrection Act to federalise the National Guard in numerous states. Using the Presidential Alert system first tested in October 2018, the president sends a text message to every American’s cellphone, warning that there is “a risk of violence at polling stations” and that “troops will be deployed as necessary” to keep order. Many are frightened into staying home on Election Day; others simply can’t find accurate information online about voting. An historical low turnout re-elects a president who was facing impeachment just months earlier.  Trump needlessly but vindictively marks his victory by renewing the state of emergency.

Scenario over: the misuse of emergency powers is a standard gambit among leaders attempting to consolidate power. Authoritarians Trump has openly claimed to admire — including the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — have gone this route.

Remedies for presidential overreach can come only after the fact, via court judgments, political blowback at the voting booth, or impeachment. However, given that dangers posed by emergency powers written into statute are known, they can be mitigated through the simple expedient of changing the law.  Who cannot see an elephant in the room?  Who will see the need for stronger shackles?

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Reality, ... Trump is still your President.

DwRcVE9UcAYeWfc.jpeg

 

Link to POTUS livestream 1/8/19

https://youtu.be/8rDo3Lu4CvM

Scheduled for Jan 8, 2019
LIVE: President Donald Trump URGENT Address to the Nation on National Security and Shutdown from the Oval Office 
 
President Trump Address on National Security President Trump delivers a prime time address to the nation on National security as the partial government shutdown, now in its third week, continues from the Oval office

 

Edited by Qanoil
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Qanoil said:

Reality, ... Trump is still your  President of the USA 🤣

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the writers of the Steele Dossier working at the Brennan Center for Justice?  We know Bill Clinton’s former director of speechwriting, Michael Waldman, is the organizations president.

Legal credibility? Giggle giggle giggle.  This is partisan leftist tripe.  Epic Fail.  

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

Legal credibility? Giggle giggle giggle.  This is partisan leftist tripe.  Epic Fail.  

More opinions and nothing of substance.

Maybe find some legal flaw in what I presented, rather than your continuing theme of blaming ideologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Red said:

Scenario over: the misuse of emergency powers is a standard gambit among leaders attempting to consolidate power. Authoritarians Trump has openly claimed to admire — including the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — have gone this route.

Probably time to panic then. 

Trump = literally Hitler?

 

bb0b9826f403319ddf1fc63ae36f0db8bb88ee3a644e40932470848ab404efa7.png

 

Here, let me add to your panic.  You're welcome.

Michael Moore pretty sure Trump’s Oval Office address is a setup for a coup

 

Edited by Qanoil
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "pretty sure" the new "strongly believe"? Just trying to keep myself up to date with the euphemisms for "We have no flipping idea but we want it to be true."

  • Haha 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Qanoil said:

Probably time to panic then. 

Trump = literally Hitler?

 

bb0b9826f403319ddf1fc63ae36f0db8bb88ee3a644e40932470848ab404efa7.png

 

Here, let me add to your panic.  You're welcome.

Michael Moore pretty sure Trump’s Oval Office address is a setup for a coup

 

Obama's was one of the most authoritarian administrations we have ever had. The administration got away with many devious and unlawful acts. Many could still be prosecuted in a fair judicial system. I can't think of any comparable acts in the Trump administration.

See Part Two of the Obama Administration Scandals. It is very lengthy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/11axnqv_b3L2k9CD6HWNMwrdIECJZSxowxjO4RIc-rbE/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=115021267467773684978

Crucial Information on the Trump and Hillary Investigations https://docs.google.com/document/d/1choW_wq0D5DfjRPjqLlAkfxCnnVJhRzrHeXppE6D4E8/edit

Edited by ronwagn
addition
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Obama's was one of the most authoritarian administrations we have ever had. The administration got away with many devious and unlawful acts.

But he was charismatic and that's all that counts. (Yes, there are people who think that and see nothing wrong with it.)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

But he was charismatic and that's all that counts. (Yes, there are people who think that and see nothing wrong with it.)

 

So, AOC is smokin' hot and emotional; she cares about how much she can do with 70% of other people's money. Some people will never have credentials half as good as her's. Quality counts! :) I wonder if she is signing yellow vests for a fee? (All Sarcasm)

AOC = Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKbLLPUN5eU

Edited by Microbio-glutonist
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Obama's was one of the most authoritarian administrations we have ever had.   Yes, another myth believed by  those who read the junk articles you linked to. The administration got away with many devious and unlawful acts. Many could still be prosecuted in a fair judicial system. Such empty words - and your evidence is where?   I can't think of any comparable acts in the Trump administration.  Have to agree with that one.

Obama never polarised the American public to the extent Trump has, and never needed to manufacture "news".

But I don't see value living in the past when the scenario I presented is available constitutionally and, from reading in theTwittershpere, entirely possible.

The question to me is what lengths will Trump go to remain in the presidency.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

31 minutes ago, Red said:

Obama never polarised the American public to the extent Trump has, and never needed to manufacture "news".

But I don't see value living in the past when the scenario I presented is available constitutionally and, from reading in theTwittershpere, entirely possible.

The question to me is what lengths will Trump go to remain in the presidency.  

1

That's because he (Obama, not Trump) was born in Kenya and was, therefore, a "fake President?" LOL! Fake News. 

To clarify, I'm making light of the "Fake News" created, not Obama, or Trump. At least America still manufactures something, Fake News.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/17/barack-obama-fake-news-facebook-social-media

Edited by Microbio-glutonist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Red said:

Obama never polarised the American public to the extent Trump has, and never needed to manufacture "news".

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/28/obama-says-michael-browns-death-in-ferguson-stains/ . Obama says Michael Brown's death in Ferguson 'stains the heart of black children'

President Obama had many opportunities to bring people together, but he did not.  Why do you think 

he used the adjective "black" children? 

Please help me understand how the the use of the adjective helped. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mike Marcellus said:

<copied below with my replies in red>

President Obama had many opportunities to bring people together, but he did not.  Why do you think he used the adjective "black" children?  He made that point clear in the link you provided.

Please help me understand how the the use of the adjective helped. As the say in the classics "it's black and white", and if you cannot work it out, I cannot help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Red, my point sir, is that he had an opportunity to unite ALL of our citizens.  He either could not or would not, specifically by using the adjective.  One little word, and he couldn't or wouldn't NOT use it.

Your replies can be very well thought out, and I was looking forward to learning something new.  But I  did not learn anything.  Do you think you could actually give me your thoughts.?

Why do you feel he used the adjective?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike Marcellus said:

@Red, my point sir, is that he had an opportunity to unite ALL of our citizens.  He either could not or would not, specifically by using the adjective.  One little word, and he couldn't or wouldn't NOT use it.

Your replies can be very well thought out, and I was looking forward to learning something new.  But I  did not learn anything.  Do you think you could actually give me your thoughts.?

Why do you feel he used the adjective?  

If there is a clear trend of activities which are statistically significant because it uses data that captures certain particulars then it is not possible to otherwise identify the nature of that significance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Red, are you saying that Obama chose to unite our country by using the adjective?  

You are a good debater, but the side-issue i thought we were focusing on was Did Obama polarize the country more than Trump?  I say President Obama chose his words carefully, and he wanted more sympathy from us (You and I) for Michael Brown (who had just robbed a store) than the police officer who ordered him to stop.  It was an opportunity to unite, but Obama chose to divide.   And until he chime's in, we'll have to work with what we thought he meant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike Marcellus said:

@Red, are you saying that Obama chose to unite our country by using the adjective?  

You are a good debater, but the side-issue i thought we were focusing on was Did Obama polarize the country more than Trump?  I say President Obama chose his words carefully, and he wanted more sympathy from us (You and I) for Michael Brown (who had just robbed a store) than the police officer who ordered him to stop.  It was an opportunity to unite, but Obama chose to divide.   And until he chime's in, we'll have to work with what we thought he meant.

You linked to Obama identifying a problem.  If you feel that is divisive, of itself, then that is your issue to resolve.  

If you wish to show that Obama's speech fostered division, as distinct from being statements of fact, then where is that evidence.  Obama, during his speech, indicated efforts being put in place to mitigate the problem, and urged attendees to get out and vote in the November midterm elections in the "hope" more could be done.  

You entered here wanting to understand how/why  "black" was used, and I have indicated the problem Obama raised had only that option.  Some media at the time suggested Obama was creating a new narrative of black victimhood, or class warfare, oblivious to the reality of statistics and that this was legacy issue needing to be better addressed.  

I would speculate that if it were a "white" problem then Obama would not have shied away from saying so at that very same Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner, and would similarly have acted to address it.  

I note you keep moving the goalposts.  If you do that, provide evidence for your position.  Eg., suggesting Obama wanted feeling of "sympathy" to flavour his speech.  Well, I haven't looked for the text of his full speech, but I found that idea was difficult to presume from your link.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TXPower said:

It would be wrong to tar all police with the one brush, but the Ferguson incident was investigated and was damning of police racism.

I have looked at many prageru uploads and none were balanced.   One reason is because it's not an actual university.  That aside, I found not only that there were no data available on police killings of unarmed citizens, but also that any data which is used is not reliable.   Arrest-related deaths are where the emotion lies, and there simply are no data which gives anyone a clue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2019 at 4:33 AM, Red said:

Obama never polarised the American public to the extent Trump has

^ Your words...

I disagree, and gave an example of President Obama polarizing the population.   What goal posts did I move?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike Marcellus said:

I disagree, and gave an example of President Obama polarizing the population.   What goal posts did I move?

You presented merely your idea, and your evidence was a lift from a less than reputable source using a quote which was unlikely to have been in context.  Where is your evidence that Obama's speech was divisive?  Why not provide the full text of Obama's speech?  Maybe it does not exist on the net, so here is Obama's same address a year later.  I cannot see that Obama at any time preached division in that speech, and in fact took the time to a read a few dozen more of his speeches at the site I linked to, and found the same.

The goalpost moved from "black" to "sympathy".  If you wish to infer something then please provide a reasoned basis.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that rather than actually discussing @Reds scenario, which to me doesn't seem completely unrealistic we discussing Obama. I would have enjoyed to watch a discussion about the Constitution or checks and balances - i.e. a factual discussion on whether this could play out. 

Is it really that the best (or only?) defense is an offense? Now, that's scary! 

For the record - I am not totally anti-Trump. But I am continuously surprised at what people are willing to accept in the name of the greater good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I find it interesting that rather than actually discussing @Reds scenario, which to me doesn't seem completely unrealistic we discussing Obama. I would have enjoyed to watch a discussion about the Constitution or checks and balances - i.e. a factual discussion on whether this could play out. 

Is it really that the best (or only?) defense is an offense? Now, that's scary! 

I don't live in America, but I too am curious why a plausible scenario is being sidetracked with a great deal of nonsense.  Seems very much par for the course in many threads, somewhat defeating the purpose of contributing.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Red said:

It would be wrong to tar all police with the one brush, but the Ferguson incident was investigated and was damning of police racism.

I have looked at many prageru uploads and none were balanced.   One reason is because it's not an actual university.  That aside, I found not only that there were no data available on police killings of unarmed citizens, but also that any data which is used is not reliable.   Arrest-related deaths are where the emotion lies, and there simply are no data which gives anyone a clue. 

Yes, you are right, it is wrong to paint with such a broad stroke.  That’s exactly what Oblozo did.  He painted a false narrative, that of a racially motivated police killing.  The facts did not bear it out.  Michael Brown was no angel and had just committed a robbery where he assaulted someone during the commission of the offense.  While the officer was attempting to detain him, Brown brutally assaulted the officer.  Poor life decision that didn’t end well for Brown.  Absolutely no evidence of racial bias on the part of the officer in the incident.

Oblozo’s SJW AG, Holder and the resulting Justice Department inquiry was far from unbiased.  Having said that, I make no claim that racism did or did not then or does or does not now exist in the Ferguson Missouri PD.  If it did/does that’s a reflection on Ferguson PD specifically and not representative of American LE generally.   That doesn’t skew the fact that true to form, Oblozo didn’t let a crisis go to waste and used it to divide the US further along racial lines.  Instead he should have used it as an instructive moment to all and used the bully-pulpit to impart some real wisdom.  Something along the lines of, “When the police attempt to detain you whether you think they are right or wrong, no matter your race, ethnic origin, or otherwise, comply”.  “Don't attack them and get dead”.  This is especially valuable advice for someone fresh from having committed robbery/assault. 

PragerU isn’t a real university, true.  But, if the measure is education; whether distance, the Socratic Method, internet blog, this forum or otherwise, they certainly took the MSM and other left leaning folks to school in this lesson.  Truth is, they offered facts in a well thought, well researched piece tackling a difficult and often skewed subject matter.  For the discerning tastes among us the video quoted work from actual universities and university researchers such as the U of Washington and that leftist darling, Harvard.  Additionally the piece quoted news media, The Washington Post, who used federal statistics from the US Department of Justice.  One would think this palatable to even the most discriminating connoisseur and demander of fact over opinion. 

The killing of unarmed citizens, unreliable data or data sufficient to provide a clue and emotion lying in arrest-related death??  Run Forrest the goal post is moving........ But, the info is out there: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585140/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-weapon-carried-2016/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites